THE USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING IN CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS |
| |
| Authors: | Randy K Otto John F Edens Elizabeth H Barcus |
| |
| Institution: | Randy K. Otto is an associate professor in the Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida. He is president of the American Academy of Forensic Psychology and serves on the editorial boards of;Psychological Assessment, Law and Human Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Correctional Mental Health Reporter, and the Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research. John F. Edens is an assistant professor in the Forensic Clinical Psychology Program at Sam Houston State University, where he has taught and conducted research since 1998. After obtaining a doctorate in clinical psychology from Texas A&M University in 1996, he completed a 2-year postdoctoral fellowship in forensic psychology in the Department of Mental Health Law and Policy at the University of South Florida;. Elizabeth H. Barcus is a doctoral student in the Forensic Clinical Psychology Program at Sam Houston State University. She received a master's degree in clinical psychology from Wheaton College in 1996;. |
| |
| Abstract: | Evaluation of families for purposes of assisting the court in making decisions about custody is perhaps the most complicated forensic evaluation. Mental health professionals conducting such evaluations must ensure that their evaluations validly assess areas of concern deemed relevant by the judiciary and legislature. Evaluators sometimes use psychological measures in the evaluation process, and in recent years, a number of tests designed specifically for use in child custody evaluation contexts have been developed. Because some published tests do not meet basic professional standards, child custody evaluators should carefully review any test and its supporting documentation before including it in their examination procedures. In this article, the authors discuss the rationale for using psychological tests in child custody evaluations, describe current testing practices, review and critique contemporary custody evaluation instruments, and offer a template for mental health professionals to use when considering use of a particular test. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
